Want your children to be able to go to uni?

'Is it because the banks support the government?'

no, it's because the government supports the banks

Do-it-yourself isn't the answer anyway, Claig. Few people can fire themselves up and have the self-discipline to keep going. Plus there's the socialising networking that goes on at uni - although that could also go on elsewhere, of course.

'If you can pay the fee for Harvard, that will always count. The top universities will charge more and fewer people will be able to go to them.' I hate to think that you could be right.

This is what I don't understand. It's not in the government's interests - any more than in ours - to restrict entry to university. What better way than uni to keep pressure off the job market, at a time when jobs are scarce, while keeping the yoof gainfully employed?

Presumably, for all the reasons of national prestige (seen the latest UK figures for school kids for Maths, Science and Reading levels? Not a pretty sight), international competition, blah blah - they also want a highly educated population?

The government have loads of our money swilling around in their coffers. Why do they want to give it to the banks? Is it because the banks support the government? The first priority of any government is to remain in power, as they can't do anything if they don't. So is it the banks who are holding the govt to ransom?

I'm no economist, and I only have a tenuous grip on financial affairs, so someone please explain.

They keep telling us that 50% go to university now. How many went to university plus polytechnic in former times? Was it also approaching 50%? How did we afford it then?

no it won't. That will be for the poor. The elite will turn up on campus at teh top universities, whatever it costs. In fact they will be able to afford it, while brighter poor and middle class students won't. The top universities won't offer internet courses, and if they do, they will still cost an arm and a leg, just because of the name. It's business and maintaining a quality image, to differentiate yourself from the rest of the crowd.

Or will the internet change the way study functions?

Why go to university at all, let alone sped tens of thousands in the process, when you can access all knowledge, potential tutors and fellow students at the comfort of your own desk, for free or an awful lot less than 9K for 3 years plus interest, maintenance costs etc? At your own convenience, maybe even accredited by a 'new' university, or foreign university? Or even our own?

WikiUniversity, maybe?

I teach foreign students, so am aware how much of a growth area online study is in my field.

But grannieonabike, people graduating from Hull may know more than people graduating from Harvard. But employers probably won't see it that way. The do it yourself route won't count. If you can pay the fee for Harvard, that will always count. The top universities will charge more and fewer people will be able to go to them.

Xenia we used to have polytechnics and universities. Do we have figures for how many used to go to both in earlier times, is it any different to how many go to what are now called universities?

Interesting ideas, BoffinMum. Something along similar lines is distance learning, which most universities are frantically investigating. (I was wondering whether the OU is going to put up its fees. Suddenly something that once seemed rather expensive now looks like the cheaper option!)

So maybe this is why they're doing it. They actually intend to phase unis out altogether, rather than just privatise them, which is what I thought originally.

Because, apart from subjects that need laboratories, what's to stop us all reading away and doing our own research and then just presenting ourselves for examination (for a fee, of course)? Many students already do that anyway, because they have to work to support themselves and often can't make lectures.

Or we can do what people in Russia and Spain did at the beginning of the 20th century: small, local learning co-operatives, mobile libraries and theatres spreading subversive ideas by word of mouth ...

Is that what DiCameron means by the Big Soc?

The £9k fees will be what the Government currently pays so this will not fund expansion or more places or anything. It is just replacing students paying with tax payers paying.

And yes children will decide perhaps to go abroad to study if the economics become similar for that. What do you get? In many subjects you are lectured by the leading experts in their field so you're taught what they say. Some courses have more contact time than others of course and if students pay direct they may want more contact time and the universities might get better in the way private school parents demand things and get a better education for the chilren because they are paying whereas if you just pay indirectly you never get such good services.

Whether we should aim to get to Germany's 25% only going to university (15% went when I went by the way so that's a lot more than then) is another issue. presumably if it's too expensive then silly pointless courses will fall by the way so which will be great and market forces at its bestand jobs which don't need a degree will become non graduate again which would also be sensbile.

yes but aren't you really paying for the piece of paper from a recognised, established, highly regarded university? It is that cachet that means they can charge that price.

let me put an idea out there.

Did you all know that currently it is permissible for any member of the public to attend lectures at any publicly funded university for free? It is known as 'auditing' a lecture.

So if you can get this for free, what extra benefit do you get from paying fees? Would it technically be possible to acquire the advantages of a university education for nothing by joining lectures in a small group with people you like, hiring university teachers to give you tutorials, and then working on assignments together?

This brings us to the big question - what actually IS a university education? And how is it worth £9000, if you're not studying medicine or practical science? What are you paying for? Student support for those with learning difficulties and emotional/financial problems. Library facilities. Chaplaincy. Subsidised catering facilities. Sport and leisure facilities. Outreach and AimHigher. Admissions Officers. Your lecturers to do new research so they grow the knowledge you need. But not all students use all of these, and much of what universities offer is available elsewhere at little or no cost, with some organisation and commitment on the part of the user.

If we strip back university learning to its 1840 level, we see students hiring their own tutors and making their own arrangements for learning, with attendance at lectures being an optional (free) extra. Now we have turned it into big business. But perhaps there will be a backlash and students will once again look to themselves for knowledge acquisition. Where will universities be then? And how will employers judge people who have all the trappings of a university education but no bit of paper?

Most big European counries seem to have lower fees/no fees at all. In exchange, however, they seem to have a slightly lower % of the population going to uni. I find it interesting that the export powerhouse that is Germany operates with only 25% of the population going to uni.

The exceptions in Europe seem to be the Scandis. However, these are small countries who economically are in a far better position than the UK or Club Med countries. Ireland has higher % but that might change soon!

The US has higher fees and slightly more going to uni. Australia has many more going to uni but a fees system (I know having worked every day through my 5 year law degree). Not sure about Canada.

What I would find interesting would be: how many uni places would need to be cut to keep fees at current levels? How many unis would close in the situation? I still think that might be a better compromise.

I agree, I don't like the fee system at all. Is there any other country in Europe that has fees as high as we will have? Are we the only country in Europe not able to afford to provide a university system without forcing young people to take on such high debt?

Why did Labour start this process? Was that just the first brick in the building?

I suspect all this talk of bridging the academic gap between state schools and private schools will become..er..academic once the new tuition fees come into play. Ability to pay will be the determining factor, and those able to pay for a private education (which doesn't mean all parents of pupils at private schools, but most of them) will be more likely to get into uni than they are now and those from state schools will be less likely to do so.

RRocks

Yes it's about increasing the standard of schools. Not blaming poor parents for not helping out enough, not arguing for redistribution so that everyone earns the same.

It is about providing top quality schools like our old grammar school system, which formed and educated Margaret Thatcher. All schools should be raised to that standard. Is that what the free schools are trying to do?

The problem of kids who have gone to private school doing better than those who go to state school needs to be adressed long before it gets to university level. Rigging university admissions is morally questionable and won't do anything to narrow the gap in the quality of education between the 2.

slug, I don't think the article proves that going to a private school means you do worse at uni than if you'd gone to a conmprehensive - it just seems to demonstrate (hardly rocket science) that of 2 academically equal able students, one of whom goes to a private school and one of whom goes to a state school, the privately-educated pupil will get slightly higher grades. But that when you put them together in the same institution, they will then perform at their natural level.

It ignores that the privately educated one with better grades is more likely to get into the university in the first place - the one with 3 B's isn't likely to get the opportunity to prove s/he'd actually be just as bright as the one with 2 A's and a B, because they won't ever get offered a place.

Which is the problem.

The research is all very well, but either it needs to be applied, or - my preferred solution - education at state schools needs to improve by a hell ofa lot so that this research ceases to reflect reality.

Mmm. And being liable for a graduate tax won't effect the mortgage a graduate can get?

Nb - the graduate tax will also need to 'kick in' at a lower rate thatn the £21k.

Just heard John Hemming who clearly knows nothing about applying for a mortgage.

When applying you have to declare all outgoings,you also have to provide bank statements so all outgoings/debts are totally transparent.

Student fees will have an impact on getting mortgages. Mortgage companies decide who they want to lend their money to,lib dem MPs don't decide it for them.They have their own rules,nobody can force them to lend anybody anything.

If a mortgage company decides you have too many outgoings and a job with little wage increase prospects they will simply turn applications down(which goes against your credit rating every time it happens) .

However the gov wants to dress up student fees it's still something that will have to be paid back and will give future mortgage payers less choice so bigger mortgage bills.

I cannot believe how out of touch with reality and real life this gov actually is.

'They need to compare students at the same uni doing the same course. I assume that will require another 5 year study ...'

very good point. It's all about standards. But we know that they deny that there are any differences in standards, and that there has been a decline. The study you suggest will take until eternity because the results wouldn't fit their progressive agenda.

Yes - I read that article. The point that came to my mind is summed up by one of the commenters - realgonekid:

"But remember, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how you do as a state school pupil at uni, because the chances are 'the system' will have pushed you into a 'lesser' institution anyway, marking you down, regardless of what grades you get in the end."

And that was my certainly experience. My time at poly gave me a very low opinion of privately educated kids. They dominated the HND courses, whilst the state educated students dominated the handful of degree courses.

It's only when I got into the working world that I realised that the 'privately educated' intellectual peers of my fellow course members, had gone to superior universities. Whether we were 'pushed down' or they were 'pushed up' the effect was the same.

Slug

The've proven after a 5 year study that a BBB comprehensive student is likely to perform as well in their university degree as an independent/grammar school pupil with AAB. I don't think that is a startling result. Better schools can enhance the results of students by better teaching and focussed coaching.

If you read the actual study though it also mentions that "students attending highly selective universities - those with a high percentage of students with A level grades ABB or AAC or above - were less likely to achieve as high a class of degree as students from less selective universities with similar attainment." In other words a AAB student at Cambridge does worse than a AAB student at Hull.

So since grammer/private school students end up at better unis than comprehensive students (because of better A level results), do they often end up with a lower degree classification because there is more competition at the higher quality uni.

They need to compare students at the same uni doing the same course. I assume that will require another 5 year study ...

'Doesn't really extrapolate out well to the major point being made, that going to private school tends to give pupils a greater sense of entitlement, higher expectations and a better chance of getting into a good university.'

Could that be why Diane Abbott sent her son private? It is many Tories who are in favour of grammar schools, which allow poor children to go to schools equally as good as many of the top private schools. David Davis, Ken Clarke, Margaret Thatcher went to grammars. John Major became Prime Minister and left school at 16. The Tories are not anti the poor, they want to give them the opportunities that people like Diane Abbott can afford to buy.

sending them to a private school does them no favours at university level though

Jack

That is a very important point. Many of us tend to think too many people go to uni in the UK (myself included) but on a relative basis the UK is close to the average.

Average graduation rates as % of age cohort for OECD countries are around 38%. Germany is surprisingly low at 25%. The US is 38%, Australia 48%, Canada 34%.

Of course this all depends on the defination of "graduate" since a German degree isn't 1:1 comparable with a UK degree.